Mr. Speaker, one of the nice parts about being one of the female members of this caucus is that I can allow the male members to be nastier than I am. I get to stay on the nice side of things. In answer to that question, I think it has some merit, but let me just say about the minister and the parliamentary secretary, who this evening have been saying that they do not understand it, and then the parliamentary secretary more or less admitted that he knows about it, if they do not know about it, they should know about it.

I would be terribly disappointed to learn that a minister would be that far behind in his portfolio. I would think that would be a condemnation of himself. I would not admit it, quite frankly.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate this evening. I want to share my time with my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster.

As a British Columbian, let me say that this is an important issue for our province. There is no doubt about the importance of the forest industry to our province. No one has any questions about that. There is no doubt about the importance of tourism to our province. There is no doubt about the spiritual importance of the forest to everyone in British Columbia.

I personally have seen the devastation caused by the infestation of the pine beetle even though it has not spread to my part of British Columbia on the lower mainland. I understand the fear and frustration that this causes for the communities that have been directly affected. I have talked to people about their dread as the infestation spreads across the province.

To see one's livelihood turning brown before one's eyes as the lodgepole pine trees in the area die, to see the timber that is harvested stained blue from the fungus carried by the pine beetle and made less desirable and less saleable, to see logging increase to make use of the dead trees immediately rather than seeing the long term viability of the industry in one's area, bringing into question the future jobs and future survival of one's community: I understand the dread that this causes for people in other parts of British Columbia.

The B.C. government has taken some initiatives on this, that is clear. I am hoping that the federal government will get behind those initiatives and expand them. It needs to get on board.

Tonight I want to talk about the suggestions made by Carole James, the leader of the New Democratic Party in British Columbia. On November 25, Ms. James made an important suggestion about a pine beetle community investment fund for communities in northern British Columbia. This fund would be modelled on the Columbia Basin Trust and the Nechako-Kitimat Development Fund.

Not so long ago, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and I and our colleagues from the NDP caucus in British Columbia visited the West Kootenays. While we were there, there were important meetings happening around the Columbia Basin Trust. We saw first-hand the importance of that arrangement for those communities and the passion that people felt about the Columbia Basin Trust and how important it was to the future viability of those communities. It is a great model in terms of the ongoing importance of those areas.

The suggestion was that a fund would be established with revenue generated from harvesting operations to control the spread of the pine beetle infestation. The need was to keep the revenue being generated from that harvesting near the affected communities rather than see it end up in the coffers of the provincial and federal governments.

This comes from the increases in the annual allowable cut in the areas around Quesnel, Prince George and the Lakes districts, where the government will collect revenue on an additional 5 million cubic metres this year alone. That is a huge windfall for the government. We and Ms. James want to make sure that the revenue is spent in the those local communities and does not disappear to Victoria.

She proposed that there needed to be community representatives making decisions and setting priorities on how to invest the revenues in their communities. Local people need to be involved directly in setting those priorities so that it is not just people in Victoria or people in Ottawa who do that work. Business, labour, first nations and municipal and regional governments all need to be directly involved--and directly involved locally--in establishing the criteria for their community investment fund on the pine beetle.

The amount of timber harvested in these areas will decline by between 20% and 40% over the next 10 to 15 years because of the extra harvesting that is happening now. As I mentioned earlier, that means the long term viability of communities is put into question. That means the ability for people who live in those areas to count on a future in that same region is being put in jeopardy because the work is being done now and not spread out over a longer period as was expected before this infestation happened.

Prince George city councillor Murray Krause believes that northern communities need to have control of their destiny by stopping the outflow of the wealth from the north. That is a key part of any long term plan for the region.

Councillor Krause strongly believes that local people in his area, in Prince George, need to have a key role in making the decisions about how this crisis is managed and how the future of those communities is developed in light of the infestation.

Nate Bello, the mayor of Quesnel, said:

This initiative recognizes the need to invest in the economic future of those communities directly impacted by the pine beetle infestation, including forestry and pine beetle recovery, transportation, tourism, energy, small business and sustainable economic development.

That is quite the list of important areas that the mayor of Quesnel has identified, but the basic fact is that he, like others, wants to be directly involved in how this crisis is managed and what the future planning and future economic development of his region is going to be. I think he recognizes that what Ms. James has suggested in her initiative around a pine beetle recovery fund goes some way to addressing that hope.

In passing, I remember not so long ago seeing a display of value added wood products made from timber that had been stained by the fungus that is left by the pine beetle. This gives the wood a streak resembling a blue grey kind of stain. It was very interesting to see that an enterprising entrepreneur in the area had actually taken this and tried to turn it to advantage, and use the special qualities of that wood in products that he was hoping to market.

That is the kind of local initiative that we need to support as well. We know and we have heard from other members this evening how the staining of this wood has decreased the value and desirability of the wood. We heard how Japan was no longer interested in the stained wood even though its strength and other qualities were not affected. It is just the cosmetic value of the wood that is affected. Here is an entrepreneur that has taken that head on and made products. He has attempted secondary manufacturing that takes advantage of the staining that has happened to the wood in order to turn the disadvantage into an advantage for British Columbia.

There are significant questions raised by the infestation. The role of fire suppression and how our fire management process has sometimes set us up to undo the natural changes in the forest. Sometimes this has made it even more likely that the pine beetle is going to take hold in an area. Regarding forest management and clear-cutting practices, when we clear-cut a forest and then reforest it, we often plant a single species which ultimately will make the forest more vulnerable to an attack by a pest such as the pine beetle.

Instead of matching the great diversity of the original forest we see the ghetto forest developed by this process. We also need to look at the whole question of climate change and how it affects this whole crisis.

Larry BagnellLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for Burnaby—Douglas and I mean that sincerely. It was one of the best speeches in a take note debate that I have heard because he offered some positive and constructive solutions that just have not been here tonight as my colleague mentioned earlier. There were no ideas coming forward over and above the number of programs that we already have in place. I highly compliment the member for that. It was certainly something to think about and I hope the Canadian Forest Service people and the minister's staff are listening to those ideas.

I would like to ask the member two questions. First, I believe his colleague sort of chastized the British Columbia government for something related to budgets and reforestation whereas, from the other side of the House, we have been hearing all night about the masterful work of the B.C. government. We are working with the B.C. government. We think it has a good plan and we are working closely with it with our plan in order to do our part of the job. Could he expand a bit more about the role of the B.C. government in relation to the lodgepole pine?

Second, by B.C. law, large forest companies have the responsibility for reforestation. When he was talking about the tax revenues of the provincial government, I want to ensure he was not suggesting that the provincial government use those tax revenues to do the reforestation that the large B.C. forest companies should be doing.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Yukon for his compliments about my speech. It is very important that we ensure that our governments take this crisis as seriously as possible. Certainly, the people in the areas affected feel this crisis very directly and very personally.

I do not think any amount of money will address all the needs and the important concerns that are in the area. We need to be working actively to see that this crisis is addressed. The B.C. NDP leader suggested to put local people in direct control of some of the windfalls that come out of this. It is strange how often, when there is a disaster in the works, there is some benefit to the overall economy.

I always think it is strange that sometimes a great disaster, such as a hurricane or earthquake, can often increase the GDP of a country because of all the effort that has to go into restoration work and rebuilding. Even though there has been a huge disaster, often lives are lost, and a huge disruption to society, it somehow ends up being a bonus when we look at the overall impact in the way we manage and the way we account for our economies.

We need to be careful in this instance. We need to ensure that we take innovative steps in order for local people to benefit from the outcome of this and that the benefits that accrue from this disaster, and unfortunately there will be some, do not all dwindle away to other parts of the province, other parts of the country or leave the country, or all go into the profits that the corporations will reap in this area. I think the B.C. NDP has come up with a really important suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for Burnaby—Douglas. He brought forward very concrete suggestions and was very well prepared for the debate this evening. It is an extremely important debate for British Columbia.

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas has certainly seen the cutbacks in the reforestation budget that has come from the Liberal government in British Columbia. He also mentioned Carole James and the work that she would do as premier and what she has put forward to address this critical issue in B.C. We know that Carole James has a great deal of experience, having lived in the interior in Prince George, as well as having lived and worked on Vancouver Island.

What is the difference between the reforestation policy of the current B.C. Liberal government and that of Carole James, leader of the B.C. NDP?

Mr. Speaker, the whole question of reforestation is a crucial one. It is particularly crucial around this whole matter of the pine beetle. In the past, in clear-cutting practices, we tended to take out the whole forest. We take out the whole forest and change the huge diversity that exists in the forest.

Someone who has visited an old growth forest will see the incredible range of plant life that is there, the incredible range of trees. It is not generally just one species of tree that is found in that area. However, after it has been logged and reforested, often it is replaced by a single species. I once heard an expert on forests call them ghetto forests because they were replaced--

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important issue this evening. I would like to thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas, both for the skill with which he spoke to the issue a few moments ago and for his generosity in sharing his time with me this evening.

We know that the pine beetle infestation is devastating British Columbia. The latest figures for 2003 indicate that over 100,000 square kilometres of British Columbia are now infested. That means roughly 173 million cubic metres of wood has been affected and has been killed as a result of this infestation. That is the equivalent of 5.2 million homes that could be constructed with the wood.

We are talking about an area equivalent to three-quarters of Sweden. If the pine beetle infestation continues, we are talking about an area the size of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island together that would be devastated.

We are talking about something, the magnitude of which has never been seen in Canadian history. This is the greatest infestation that we have ever had in Canada. It is a matter of tremendous importance for communities in the interior of British Columbia that have seen their lodgepole pine forests and other forests devastated. In fact, the latest figures indicate that we could be talking about 85% of the lodgepole pine forests that will be affected. Obviously, the magnitude of this crisis is significant and the magnitude of the response needs to be significant as well.

As I indicated earlier, the $40 million that the federal government is putting in is not sufficient to handle the magnitude of this crisis, not nearly sufficient to handle the magnitude of the crisis. When we couple it with the cutbacks that have happened at the provincial level, we are talking about a situation where the lack of political action at both the provincial and federal levels is compounding this important crisis and making it much worse.

I would like to mention a report that will be released in a few days by the Sierra Club. It indicates the degree to which cutbacks by the provincial government have had an impact on the pine beetle infestation. The study is done by a former Vancouver Sun forestry reporter, Ben Parfitt. He was assisted by Kerri Garner, a student of environmental studies and geography at the University of Victoria. Certain excerpts were published by Stephen Hume in the Vancouver Sun last week.

First, they did a study of the cutbacks to the ministry of forestry. The cutbacks indicated that 800 jobs in the ministry of forestry have disappeared over the last three years since Gordon Campbell was elected. Most of those 800 positions which were axed include science, technical research and enforcement staff. We have been talking this evening about the importance that research plays in developing a response to the pine beetle infestation. The B.C. Liberals under Gordon Campbell gutted 800 positions. The newspaper report stated:

--the authors found “a gutted and demoralized department that is largely incapable of addressing the many challenges before it”.

The writers indicated that:

In short, the government wound up decimating the ministry just as it confronted the most sinister challenge it has faced--the nightmarish pine beetle infestation that is sweeping through B.C.'s boreal forests like a botanical version of the Black Death.

That is the result of the cutbacks of the B.C. Liberals in dealing with this important pine beetle infestation. It is having a huge impact on the interior of British Columbia.

As I mentioned earlier, we are talking about an industry that has $16 billion in export revenues annually, but there have been cutbacks, both in terms of the number of positions that have been eliminated and the cutbacks for reforestation. We have seen reforestation budgets cut from $82 million to $3 million in this most recent year and we know reforestation is one important way of trying to address this infestation.

We have seen cutbacks at both those levels and the result compares unfavourably to the U.S. forest service. For example, each U.S. forest service employee is responsible for managing a forest area equivalent to five--

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that there is apparently an election coming up in British Columbia on May 17. Anybody who did not know would actually think we were in Victoria right now, with the NDP members going on about the B.C. Liberals cutting back their forest amounts and so on. This is the federal Parliament, I just thought I would let the member know, and we are talking about the responsibility of the federal government in this issue in British Columbia.

If he wants to get into provincial politics, perhaps we could remind him, as my colleague from Cariboo--Prince George did earlier in the debate, it was the B.C. NDP government that was at the crux, at the core, at the beginning, at the genesis of this disaster. Perhaps the member might think a little about his comments. If we are trying to hold the federal Liberals accountable, because truly they have an accountability in the aftermath of the start of the disaster by the B.C. NDP, we should be doing that in this chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the hon. member opposite who first said that we should not be talking about provincial politics and then proceeded of course to support the position of the B.C. Liberals.

It is very clear in the House that we have a responsibility to question the inadequate response from the federal Liberals. There is no doubt their response has been entirely inadequate. In previous interventions in the House, I have mentioned that very fact. Forty million dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to the sixteen billion dollars that the export industry is worth. There is no doubt the federal Liberals are responsible in large part, but we will not let the provincial Liberals off the hook either. What they do is pass the ball back and forth. The federal Liberals say that the provincial Liberals should be doing more. The provincial Liberals say that the federal Liberals should be doing more.

The reality is the inadequate federal response, coupled with the cutbacks, which we have seen devastating the ministry of forests, has led to the crisis we now see. Under the B.C. Liberal watch, most of the territory that is now infested was infested. Most of that has happened over the past three or three and a half years, since the B.C. Liberals were elected. That is unfortunate and it shows that the B.C. Liberal cutbacks have had an impact as well.

In the spirit of non-partisanship, members in all four corners of the House should recognize that when a provincial government enacts policies that have an extremely negative impact on our forest land, we have the responsibility to speak up. In this case, both the federal Liberals and the B.C. Liberals are responsible.

Larry BagnellLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, no one from this side of the House has ever suggested the B.C. Liberals should do anything different.

All night long I have been trying to get some members from Her Majesty's loyal opposition to buy into Kyoto or the mechanisms under Kyoto to reduce greenhouse gases. As everyone has admitted, a cold spell is the only way of biologically defeating this bug, which has been determined by scientists. However, they disagree. They say that they have something better. I would be delighted to hear in their coming speeches this evening what better ways they have of reducing greenhouse gases, other than the ones proposed.

They were complaining about carbon credits. The best way to reduce greenhouse gases quickly is in one industry to get more bang for the buck rather than put in another industry that does not have much room to move.

I know they are very supportive of Kyoto and greenhouse gas reductions. In some areas we have put a lot of effort into solar and renewable energies, like ethanol and wind, but they are not available all the time. They are intermittent. In some areas of the world and in some parts of Canada nuclear energy is very low in greenhouse gases. Would the member comment on nuclear energy as one of the methods in a combined comprehensive strategy to reduce greenhouse gases in some parts of the world?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a very important point about Kyoto, the importance of adhering to it and moving forward with it. I do not buy the proposition that somehow there is something better, something hidden away that we will hear about some time from the members in one corner of the House. The reality is we must work through Kyoto. Only through Kyoto can we really start addressing the issues of climatic change, which have worsened the pine beetle infestation.

Larry BagnellLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I am delighted that we are having this debate tonight so we can outline the comprehensive program we have put in place in conjunction with and working with the B.C. government over the last few years: the pine beetle initiative and various programs under that.

It should be noted that Canada's Constitution clearly indicates that the forest land management and indeed the management of all natural resources fall within the provincial mandate. Additionally, under British Columbia's forest legislation, as I said earlier, major forest licence holders are required to carry out reforestation at their own expense.

The role of the federal government in forest matters is confined to the areas of science and technology, aboriginal affairs, national reporting, consensus building, international trade and relations and the management of federal lands. However, it should also be noted that the federal government is putting a large effort toward assisting the province of British Columbia, while staying within the federal mandate, in the mountain pine beetle battle.

In 2002 a $40 million six year program, the mountain pine beetle initiative, was introduced. This initiative complements the province's mountain pine beetle activities and is consistent with the federal mandate, a principle that was established at the outset of discussions with B.C. officials. One would think from listening to the debate tonight that those discussions had never occurred, but they did.

The mountain pine beetle initiative includes a suite of programs assisting beetle control and forest rehabilitation of federal lands: first nations reserve lands, federal parks and three large blocks of federal forest lands, as well as private non-industrial forest lands.

The member for Cariboo—Prince George has been quoted in the media as saying that the mountain pine beetle outbreak is as much a natural disaster as the Quebec ice storms and he feels the federal government should be providing funding to rehabilitate Crown forests that are being attacked by the beetle. That has been said this evening as well.

The beetle infestation is huge and the situation is serious, but whatever the government does must be consistent with its mandate. It should be remembered that in the ice storm situation, to which the hon. member has referred, federal funding did not go to rehabilitate provincial crown lands, but to assist private landowners, as is being done in the current situation in B.C.

The mountain pine beetle initiative was developed as a response to a provincial request for federal programming in this area. It also includes a research program focused on reducing current infestation impacts and the risk of future beetle epidemics. This meshes nicely with the province's 10 year wood salvage plan.

I want to mention that under the $40 million initiative, there are a number of programs. Some are research and some are reforestation, as I have just mentioned. All those programs are working and in place.

In that plan, the research initiative has four sections to it. The first is to estimate the commercial lifespan of beetle killed timber. The second is to how best utilize the large volume of dead timber, and that falls in line with the industrial strategy ideas that were raised earlier this evening. The third is the research we are doing on the impacts of the timber flow changes on forest dependent communities, of which there are a number in B.C. and other parts of Canada. The NDP raised tonight the need for us to address those communities, and we are doing that. The fourth idea, in which I know the NDP would be interested in, is our research on the ecological impacts of managing the beetle killed stands. The NDP raised that issue tonight.

The B.C. ministry of forests recognizes that mountain pine beetle initiative research is addressing the high priority information requirements and that this effort is supplying critical information to the province in support of its 10 year plan. Additionally, federal officers have been located in the beetle epidemic region of Prince George and Kamloops to facilitate the delivery of the mountain pine beetle forest programs. I mentioned that earlier this year.

Perhaps the member for Cariboo—Prince George is unaware that in his own riding of Prince George the mountain pine beetle initiative has awarded nearly $1 million in funding to research scientists at the University of Northern British Columbia and the B.C. ministry of forests.

This funding is to produce answers to research priorities identified by hundreds of forest land managers during a series of regional forums, including three sessions in Prince George. These forums were undertaken by the Canadian Forest Service to ensure the mountain pine beetle initiative's research agenda would not only be scientifically sound, but also focused on the information needs of those directly battling the beetle. That falls in line with what a number of people raised tonight about local consultations.

Scientists from the University of Northern British Columbia and the Canadian Forest Service are working together to discover, among other things, the dispersal patterns of beetle populations, the factors contributing to the rate of decay in beetle killed timber, the hydrological changes in forest stands killed by the beetle, and at what point a beetle-attacked stand no longer contributes to the outbreak expansion. This research will help forest managers decide when and where to harvest during outbreak conditions.

These projects illustrate how federal government researchers and university researchers can partner together to deal with the impacts of the current outbreak and to use that knowledge to reduce the risk from future forest pest epidemics.

I say future epidemics because we are quite certain they will occur. The mountain pine beetle is a natural part of the pine forests of western North America. As a natural part of these ecosystems, it is well adapted to these forests and from time to time its population explodes.

The federal government's experience with the insects goes back to 1914. Over the decades, through federal-provincial cooperation, many outbreaks of this pest have been tracked. However, the current outbreak has spread across an area approaching 10 million hectares, an area larger than New Brunswick. It is by far the largest mountain pine beetle outbreak on record.

Complete control of the mountain pine beetle is not possible given the scale of the infestation and the abundance of mature lodgepole pine, the insect's food source. The only thing that will bring it under control is a period of winter cold, minus 40 for a number of days, or an unseasonable fall or spring cold snap.

Other troubling aspects of the current outbreak are the early scientific results that indicate mountain pine beetle now inhabits areas where it was not previously found. It is thought this beetle migration is some of the first evidence on climate change actually occurring in Canada. The outlook is for increased beetle spread as climate change models indicate a reduced likelihood of prolonged winter cold necessary to terminate the infestations.

There is no quick or easy fix for this situation. The hon. member is greatly mistaken when he alleges that the federal government is not engaged in the issue. The Canadian Forest Service of Natural Resources Canada is deeply involved in this situation and is working in close cooperation with the province, having put financial resources and some of the best forest researchers in the country and perhaps in the world to work on this issue. The results of their research provide a sound base to the mitigation policies and programs implemented by forest managers and planners.

The B.C. ministry of forests is well aware of the contributions made by the Canadian Forest Service and the Government of Canada in this situation. Those valuable contributions should not be dismissed.

I want to talk for a few minutes now on the effects on the little guy who has been caught in this issue, particularly in British Columbia, although the pine beetle has spread to Alberta as well.

Many Canadians, specifically those in British Columbia, draw their income directly from the forest or in activities related to the forest. Commercial forestry firms, many with high technology mills across the country, produce products for domestic and export markets, contributing some $40 billion to Canada's export earnings.

There are many others, individuals or small groups, who operate on private woodlots often not as visible, but who are playing a strong role in dealing with the mountain pine beetle epidemic in B.C. They are neighbours to the crown lands managed and protected by the Government of B.C. and the forest licensees. They are interested in being good neighbours in joining the effort to respond to the natural occurrence of the beetle. I want them to know that the government has not forgotten them.

A six year, $40 million initiative was announced in October 2002. Within that initiative is a major program designed to directly assist the efforts of private woodlot operators to work on beetle control and on post-beetle rehabilitation of their forest lands.

As I said, I am interested in drawing the attention of the House to the support for British Columbia's private land owners in this important area. In addition, there is the mountain pine beetle initiative and forest rehabilitation on first nation reserves.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that we got the federal Liberals on record. I am going to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources to speak for himself as well as his minister.

Very recently provincial government representatives were in Ottawa. They brought with them a major 10 year plan to mitigate the damage caused by the mountain pine beetle infestation, as well as to mitigate the economic impact of that throughout the province in communities that depend on our forest industry.

Will the parliamentary secretary stand in his place now and speak for himself and his minister and tell us, on the record, that he and his minister know absolutely nothing about this 10 year major plan that was just presented within the last couple of months by the provincial government representatives here in Ottawa? Will he stand up and say that he and his minister know absolutely nothing about this mitigation plan?

Mr. Speaker, climate change is affecting my riding as well, which is why we keep encouraging the members opposite to help us with the climate change problem affecting species like this.

I cannot comment on a meeting I was not at or a trip I was not involved in. I am glad we are having this debate so that members can actually see the various initiatives the federal government is taking, the various plans we have made with the B.C. government in reaction to its approaches.

There are various areas of jurisdiction. There is work on a number of programs that the federal government has undertaken. We have not got to all the federal land yet. I will have to speak to that later. There are federal lands in national parks, on first nations reserves and on big federal forest tracts in B.C.

I outlined the four elements of the research agenda. We have a major plan, initiatives and programs in cooperation with B.C. If the members opposite are not willing to admit that all these things are underway, or they do not understand it, then we cannot go on from there with further suggestions. It would be interesting, as I have heard from this corner of the House, to hear some suggestions from the other corner of the House. Over and above that, once they admit all these things that we are doing, I would like to hear suggestions as to how we could move forward. I would certainly be the first one to pass those on to the department.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention in the House. I know that the hon. member is fully aware of the value of the forest industry, the $16 billion in exports annually. I also know that the hon. member understands the size and scope of the incredible crisis that we are facing in British Columbia. It is over 100,000 square kilometres of devastated forest land.

The hon. member understands the size and scope of the issue. He certainly understands the value of the industry and the importance of forest lands in British Columbia. Would he not agree with me that $40 million over six years is very much a pittance, much less than what is needed from the federal government to address the crisis?

Mr. Speaker, the member has asked an excellent question. He referred to that concept earlier.

I would like to point out two items that he did not mention in relation to this question. First of all, it was the part of the speech I have not had an opportunity to give yet, which talked about how we were dealing with the rest of the federal mandate.

I am interested in suggestions. We have talked about the federal lands, the federal science, the federal research, bringing people together in cooperation and working with the B.C. government. If there are other areas in the federal mandate that were not covered in our programs and which we are not doing, I would certainly be willing to hear them.

The other item is in relation to funds. The member is quite right about the magnitude of the problem and the magnitude of the effect on the B.C. economy. We have to look at the cost of the individual solutions. If $2 million is enough and it solves the problem, then all that is spent is $2 million.

I think the solution is the funds related to the things that are left undone. Hopefully tonight we will hear, as we have already heard from this corner of the House, some suggestions of where we need to invest more over and above the comprehensive programs that we put forward relating to the items that the federal government is allowed to deal with.

Mr. Speaker, I thought that rather than getting into a debate only with our words, I would put some words from registered professional foresters on the record with respect to the federal government. I have some comments from Peter Gribbon of Downie Street Sawmills and from Troy Hromadnik, the chief forester at Tembec. Both are very responsible forestry companies, as are all of the forestry companies in my constituency of Kootenay—Columbia, that I am proud to represent.

Mr. Gribbon in part says:

The cause of landscape level outbreaks is tree and stand susceptibility. The best long-term strategy is to focus on managing pine instead of the beetle. That could be extended to say: the best strategy is to focus on managing lodgepole pine ecosystems and the processes that regulate them. Conversion of the landscape to one less prone to epidemic outbreaks provides the only real solution to the type of Mountain Pine Beetle problems currently seen in B.C.

a mix of tree species and ages in a forest helps to prevent populations from building up;

shortening rotations time also helps keep the forest younger, healthier and more resistant to attack;

permanent road systems throughout the working forest reduces the response time and can help keep outbreaks small;

maintain vigour in pine stands.

He goes on to say:

The Federal Forest Rehabilitation program, led by Natural Resources Canada will deliver a beetle control response on federal forest lands that have the greatest concentration of beetle-infested forest.

The federal government could also make additional significant contributions in the following areas:

economic and strategic analysis;

economic diversification support;

environmental impact mitigation work;

fisheries and water protection work;

rehabilitation of non-economic sites;

support for University and College research chairs;

undertake research into effective forest and ecosystem management;

investigate influence of climate change;

help support rural

community economies and assist in developing other economic engines.

Mr. Hromadnik of Tembec had a slightly different perspective in his presentation to me. He said:

At this point, management efforts at the provincial level are almost exclusively focused on controlling the spread of this pest. While this is and clearly should be the priority of land managers in the province of BC, only recently has there been a recognition that the federal government must begin to play a more active role.

As it relates to forest health, the role of the federal government continues to be elevated as the mountain pine beetle epidemic persists in the province of BC. In a recent forest manager 'think tank' session, the question was asked of senior industry members, “What is the role of and/or what are the expectations of the federal government in the matter of controlling the spread of mountain pine beetle in B.C.?” Several consistent themes evolved including...

reforestation/rehabilitation funding;

marketing;

education and awareness;

research and development;

community stability; and,

overall political support for the various initiatives.

In 2001, a BC industry task force called for $600 million in federal assistance over 10 years and in 2002 joined with the province to request an additional $125 million over five years. While the province did receive $40 million in federal funding, the amount is far short of that required to address the 'fall-out' from this disaster. Although industry maintains the legal requirement to reforest land where salvage harvesting has occurred, there are literally thousands of hectares where stands that are killed will not be salvaged. To ensure that these stands continue to contribute to the 'productive forest landbase' of the province, rehabilitation activities will be required. As one assesses the problem it becomes clear that substantial federal funding will be required to assist the province of BC in completing this task.

He goes on to say:

Although the beetle epidemic in BC is rightly seen as a disaster by most, it is not necessarily viewed this way by all. The federal government, to the benefit of the province and the BC industry, may choose to implement a mountain pine beetle education and awareness program. Through such efforts, the federal government will educate foreign markets, communities, NGO groups and students on the implications of this event.

He then goes on to talk about research and development as a key area of the federal government. He also points out:

Many communities in the province of BC will undoubtedly face significant, long-term impacts as a result of the beetle epidemic. The federal government, in cooperation with BC agencies, will be able to identify such communities and will be able to develop economic transition strategies where they are suited. The federal government can aid and encourage economic diversification of communities and/or individual businesses and can attract other economic ventures compatible with future re-establishment of the forest industry. With federal funding and efforts tied to the maintenance of community stability in affected regions of the province, the long-term economic impacts of this pest will be reduced and, in some areas, perhaps mitigated.

Federal support has been sought by the province in the past. In light of the disaster created by the mountain pine beetle, B.C. is again looking for the involvement of the federal government. The federal government has a key role to play in the control of this pest and/or in the mitigation of its impacts. The federal government, in collaboration with provincial partners, is capable of identifying and addressing those challenges that have arisen as a result of the beetle epidemic. The federal government maintains the knowledge, resources and infrastructure to follow through on the action plan it develops. It is for these reasons that the federal government must join its provincial partners and engage the mountain pine beetle issue head-on.

Those were two sets of comments by people in the province who are directly engaged with the potential of this problem.

In my constituency of Kootenay—Columbia we are just at the starting edge of this problem. I regret to see the devastation in the constituencies of my colleagues from Prince George and in other areas of the province. We are just starting into it. It is primarily on the west side of Kootenay Lake and it can clearly be seen. There are other patches throughout the east Kootenays. It will fully engage the pine in Kootenay National Park and Yoho National Park. It will then carry on through Banff and Jasper National Parks and end up in my colleague's constituency in Yellowhead and in the constituency of my other colleague from Wild Rose.

At that point, we will have engaged so much wood it will be hard to even comprehend. With all due respect to my friends from the NDP and all the people who are involved on the farther edge of the environmentalist action groups, I say that they should give their heads a shake. Two years ago in the summer, we had forest fires in Kelowna that were directly related to this infestation. In fact, what we have in many parts of the interior of British Columbia at this point is not forests. We have matchsticks complete with phosphorous on the top, figuratively speaking. Our whole province is about to burn up as a result of this infestation and the standing dead wood.

Some environmental groups have become very exercised about the fact that even with a low level satellite in terms of being able to take a look down on the province of British Columbia, that one can see the area of clear cut. Of course we can but that beats the heck out of having all of that fuel sitting there just waiting to turn into an absolute inferno.

Why am I describing it this way? I see my friend from Yukon. He has much of the same kind of topography. Although his trees grow at a much slower rate, he region has many of the same species and, to a lesser extent, the same kind of industry that I have in my constituency and in the province of British Columbia. He would know that when this happens we will see, over the next 5, 10, 15 years, changes in our province that even at this point are unimaginable to us. We have only seen a taste of it as a result of the fire at Kelowna. In fact, the forest fire in my constituency came within only 10 kilometres of the southern boundary of the city of Cranbrook.

If this disaster, and I say again, disaster, was in Ontario, if this disaster was where Liberals get elected, they would have been falling all over themselves to get the situation corrected or at least to come up with some form of mitigation. It is to that extent that this is a political debate. It is to that extent that when they see problems with the auto pact and the auto industry that they turn up with many tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. When they see the problem in the Canadian aerospace industry they turn up with loan guarantees and export plans. They turn up with all sorts of resources but somehow in the province of British Columbia, where this happens to be on the other side of the Canadian Rockies, they cannot see it. They do not understand it.

I really value the input that we have had from my colleague from Kamloops. It is true that in her presentation she was somewhat emotional but maybe we do have to get a little emotional in this chamber. She was a little emotional on behalf of her constituents. She said that the people in her constituency, the people in my colleague's constituency and the people in the Prince George--Peace River constituency are living with this at this point. They are seeing the starting edge of this disaster happening.

It is with that frustration that I, having the privilege of being B.C. caucus chair, am fully aware and engaged with this on behalf of the B.C. caucus because our B.C. caucus speaking for the people of B.C. are the only ones who are trying to put any kind of pressure on the federal Liberals.

We heard the chirping of the natural resources minister earlier tonight when we was saying, “You didn't give me a phone call”. I do not know what all was going on. Mr. Chair, obviously you were not there but I am sure with your expertise that all of that chirping would not have happened. However, the point was that it became a back and forth debate. The reality is that we are dealing with a disaster at this particular point.

I say to the federal Liberals that they should wake up and smell the forest fire because that is exactly what we are into at this particular point. We need action, not more words from the federal Liberals.

Larry BagnellLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for the first 75% of his speech. I thought it was very innovative and it was great to have some quotes, on which I was going to start my question but now have to start off with the last unfortunate part .

He mentioned that his party may be the first opposition party engaged but the reason we wanted this debate tonight is, as we have shown, that our party has a comprehensive set of programs that we have put in place. They are all in place. We are working on them and we will continue to do that. I am glad that his party is coming on side, pushing the problem that has to be worked on.

Unfortunately the opposition members have tried to put forward a myth by asking why we are not reacting like we did during the ice storm, SARS and these other major crises in Quebec and Ontario. As I have already said in my speech, I explained how we are dealing in the same way as we did in the ice storm, by reforesting woodlot owners.

A member from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition asked tonight “Why do you not do the same as with SARS and put in $10 million for such a major crisis?” Well, we have put in $40 million, which is more than he mentioned in relation to SARS.

I will go back to my question on the thoughtful part of his presentation. It was great that he had these experts in the province directly engaged in the problem. They mentioned a number of items that he read out, such as community stability, research, rehabilitation and R and D. That is great because those are the things that we have outlined in our speeches tonight on exactly what we are doing.

I have outlined the four prong research program. I have talked about the rehabilitation that was done on the lands that we were allowed to, on all the various types of federal lands. I have talked about community stability as the third pillar in our research program.

My question is related to two other items that those experts mentioned, one being diversification and the other climate change. As the House knows, we have a Department of Western Diversification, but the party of the member opposite is always criticizing that department saying that we should not have that department giving out money to promote diversification, although that is what those experts he quoted asked that we should do.

My question will give the member a good opportunity to outline, as other members of his caucus have mentioned tonight, better ways for reducing greenhouse gases than the ones that we are proposing. What are those other ways of reducing greenhouse gases?

First, I would point out that in the comments by one of my experts he said, “In 2001 a B.C. industry task force called for $600 million“--which seems to me to be a tad more than $40 million but I am not sure--“in federal assistance over 10 years and in 2002 joined with the province to request an additional $125 million over five years”.

My math is not all that great, but I come up with a total of $725 million that was recommended by experts and requested by the province. The response by the federal government was $40 million. It seems to me that there is something of a shortfall.

My friend keeps on going back to the question and we have answered the question with respect to Kyoto and the whole issue of climate change.

While I recognize it is his turn to ask me question, I would ask him, if all that is happening under Kyoto, in addition to some of the glossy advertising that the federal government is attempting to put together and trying to influence people in that particular way and having very little effect, what is gained by taking carbon credits from Russia on old information, on information that existed when it was the U.S.S.R. instead of Russia? Their economy fundamentally collapsed. As a consequence, they have so-called carbon credits left over to sell.

What are we going to do? I guess Canada will transfer hundreds of millions of dollars, nay billions of dollars, to Russia in order to get away with continuing to put out carbon. carbon, I should mention in the case of Russia, that will now increase as a result of the turn back in the economy. The economy in Russia is now starting to come back up again and this is all stale dated.

All that is basically going on is buying and selling of carbon credits and a little bit of advertising. If that is going to solve the pine beetle problem in the mind of the member for Yukon, then I think he has been looking at too many northern lights.

Mr. Speaker, the member might be right, because I was definitely looking at some gorgeous northern lights on Saturday night in my riding. They are spectacular.

However, I would suggest that he did not answer my two questions. The first question had to do with the experts that he quoted who suggested diversification. We have a Department of Western Diversification that was created for that. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition constantly suggests that we should close that. He quotes an expert who says that we should do something and then the member lobbies against it.

My second question has to do with climate change. I asked the member a question on climate change because at least three of the members of his caucus tonight have suggested they have a better way. What better ways for reducing greenhouse gases does the member's party have? I would be happy to look at other ways to reduce them.

In relation to carbon credits and trading emission credits, one of the best ways to reduce greenhouse gases available is by collecting methane from landfills in developing countries. If a country is serious about reducing greenhouse gases that way and trade it off to a Canadian company that might otherwise go broke, if through their processes it has already done everything it can, as opposed to forcing them to do something that would make them totally uneconomic, they might as well reduce those greenhouse gases in another area where they can be reduced and trade those credits. However if the member has a better way I would like to know about it.

Finally, he suggested the increased figures of what we are doing. I have explained a comprehensive program where we are dealing with the items under the federal mandate. If he wants more funds I would like him to suggest some concrete proposals, something like the NDP did earlier this evening, as to what exactly we would use that extra money for over and above a comprehensive slate of programs that we have running right now under the mountain pine beetle initiative.

Mr. Speaker, this is good debate because in fact western economic diversification is exactly that: economic diversification. I am afraid that my friend did not understand what one of my experts was saying. I will quote him:

Conversion of the landscape to one less prone to epidemic outbreaks provides the only real solution to the type of Mountain Pine Beetle problems currently seen in B.C.

He is talking about the responsibility that governments have, including the federal government, to pony up some dollars to help in the process of reforestation, and rather than just going with pine and pine and pine in the forest to come up with a diversity of pine, a diversity of stand, and to manage the forest in a way such that the forest would not be susceptible, as it has been, to this epidemic with one particular species.

With respect to the question of climate change, I can understand that he is trying to make a point about Kyoto. I think we could have a debate about energy and energy alternatives that might be well taken in the House, but let us talk about that for half a second.

Instead of shipping a couple of hundred million dollars over to Russia in this false attempt with carbon credits, why not take that money and put it into wind research? Why not take that money and put it into solar research? Why not take that money and put it into tax credits and programs which would actually develop alternatives that can make a difference in terms of carbon generation?

We are going to be requiring more and more energy. I take a look, for example, at the great nation of China, with 1.3 billion people and the rapacious appetite they have for energy. The amount of energy that it will require for its developing economy is absolutely gigantic. We cannot even imagine the amount of energy that it is going to require.

With the kind of technology we have in Canada, through either a tax credit program or some kind of encouragement, instead of shipping the money for these crazy carbon tax credits, why do we not use that money to help Canadian industry develop an alternative for countries like China or India so that they will no longer be dependent on burning fossil fuels and creating the CO

2

? That is the innovative way that the Conservative Party is looking at it, not the old, tired out policies of shipping billions of dollars for paper tax credits.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand and be heard in this take note debate tonight, which hopefully is going to draw attention to the problem of the pine beetle in British Columbia. However, we need to take a look at this issue not only from British Columbia's perspective but from my riding's perspective as well, because the pine beetle impacts it also in a very significant way.

The forest industry is a large economic driver in my riding. It is an important part of the livelihood of many individuals who live in my riding. Let me put it this way. I have a geographically large riding made up of a significant number of communities and there is not one community I can think of in my riding that has not been impacted in a significant way by the softwood lumber industry or the forest industry in one way or another. Because of that, we are looking across the mountains. My riding is in Alberta and reaches from Edmonton to the B.C. border, and through Jasper National Park, by the way.

I will talk a bit about the parks, the impact or lack of impact of this crisis and what is happening on the other side of the mountains. Looking across the mountains into British Columbia we can see the devastation that is being caused by the pine beetle. Speaker after speaker this evening talked about that devastation and how it has impacted their communities. It really is something that we should consider.

My colleagues have talked about the lack of resources being applied to the problem in British Columbia and how that is so different from the ice storm or perhaps the SARS crisis, which also impacted other areas of this country in a significant way. By the way, SARS did impact our area of the country in tourism.

There is a difference with regard to the impact and the amount of dollars applied from the federal side of things with regard to the ice storm or SARS; that is, it did not take years and years for the government to get to the table to address the problem. When the ice storm hit, emergency relief was available. When SARS hit, emergency relief was available to deal with it as soon as possible.

Let me say, though, that the pine beetle infestation hit many years ago and this thing just started to grow. It is a lot like a fire. If the problem is not addressed at its infancy, it will grow and become an animal that is uncontrollable in a very short time. That is what we see with a forest fire and that is what we are seeing with the pine beetle.

This issue was left. It was neglected. Because of that, it has grown into a crisis beyond belief. It is now a challenging problem. Timber worth up to $9 billion has been destroyed already and it is possible that will be up to $16 billion. Also, that does not count the amount of timber that is in jeopardy in my province.

We are becoming very alarmed at what we are seeing with regard to the pine beetle, because it is starting to get through the parks. We have seen over the last year signs of the pine beetle getting into Willmore Wilderness Park, a provincial park in the Grande Cache area.

That is very significant because it means that the pine beetle leaped the Rocky Mountains. It is not the first time this has happened. It happened in the 1940s and between 1977 and 1986, a few decades ago. It was neglected back then, just like a fire that is neglected. It turned into an absolutely massive problem that created thousands of dollars' worth of losses in timber.

This can be dealt with in two different ways, or in three or four different ways, I suppose. One of the ways is to just leave it alone, cross our fingers and hope that we get minus 40° for a couple or three weeks. That should arrest the problem. That is one approach. That has been the approach of this government for the last number of years. We are not convinced that it is an appropriate approach.

We do not do that to a forest fire. Our timber is too valuable to just leave it. When a fire starts, it has to be aggressively attacked. We attack the fire so that we can protect the forest for future generations. When a forest is gone we lose the watershed, we lose the potential for good soil, we lose water quality, and we lose the natural ecosystem of the entire forest and the land around it. This has massive repercussions on the natural environment of both Alberta and British Columbia.

To just neglect it and not deal with it is not an option. That is a plan that just does not work and has not been working in the past. We have to do something similar to what we would do with a forest fire. We have to aggressively attack it. This forest fire, this pine beetle infestation, is out of hand. It is not a forest fire, it is a pine beetle infestation, but it has caused a massive disruption of a massive area of land and we have to attack it with a significant amount of resources.

Therein lies the problem. The B.C. government has come forward with a plan, but we see little support from this federal government. We are wondering why the government is not there. Why is the federal government not trying to work hand in glove with the provincial government? It could be said that it is provincial jurisdiction and started as provincial jurisdiction and the federal jurisdiction should not butt in.

Perhaps the government can claim that in British Columbia, but it cannot claim that in the national parks. Jasper and Banff National Parks are 100% federally supported and are within federal jurisdiction. It is a natural buffer between the forests in Alberta which are outside of the park and the beetle problem in British Columbia. It is a natural place for us to arrest it, at least at that border, so it does not jeopardize more forests heading west, which is the direction these beetles are moving.

I put this on the table and challenge the Liberal government to wake up and realize the potential of the hazard. It cannot turn around and blame a provincial government for it. It can only look at itself in the mirror. It is on record that we have a problem now in the national parks, which are 100% within the jurisdiction of the Liberal government, and it needs to deal with it.

Right now the national parks have said that it is a natural disaster, that they will leave it alone and let it run its course. We have seen the devastation that has occurred in British Columbia by letting it run its course. We do not say that if a fire breaks out, whether it is in the park or out of the park. There is only one time we would do that in a park, and that is if we want to control some of the old forests. We do not do that by allowing a beetle to get completely out of control as we have seen in British Columbia.

With regard to solving the problem, we need to aggressively attack it. We need to have a government that realizes exactly the problem. We have seen tonight in this debate, as others have spoken from different constituencies, how devastating this is to their ridings and to British Columbia. They have put that on the table. Hopefully, this evening we can raise some awareness of it and bring to the attention of the government in power that it has to get serious about the problem.

I understand a 10 year provincial plan has been brought forward. We have seen no commitment by the government to support that plan. We challenge it to do that. That is the least it can do, even if it is long after it should have been addressed. It is similar to SARS, or an ice storm, or other natural disasters that we have seen across the country. We do that as Canadians. When a natural disaster devastates an industry, we try to do what we can. Yet for some reason British Columbia has been left out. It is almost as if Ottawa looks at the forests in British Columbia as hinterland and does not worry about them. That is exactly what they are, hinterland, and they are being destroyed before our eyes. We have a government that talks about Kyoto, that talks about carbon credits, that talks about how it is an environmentalist, but it is turning a blind eye to protecting an environment that is being devastated by this beetle, This is not only about the environment. It is about the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of timber and the jobs that go with it, including the livelihoods of families, communities, et cetera.

We have to get serious. We cannot allow the neglect that happened before. In the forties this beetle caused problems in Alberta. The governments turned a blind eye to it and let it run its course. It caused massive amounts of damage. We saw it again from 1977 to 1986. We cannot allow it to happen again. We have to deal with this at its infancy. While it is not in its infancy in B.C., it is in the parks and in Alberta. Now is the time to act.

I encourage the government to get off its backside and do something creative and constructive for the benefit of Canadians in this part of Canada.